Illegals could throw the Electoral College towards Hillary
though this is Newsmax (grab your salt shaker) there is
an important fact here::: most of the Electoral College votes
are derived from gross census, which includes illegals. -- j
.
an important fact here::: most of the Electoral College votes
are derived from gross census, which includes illegals. -- j
.
is a dozen of Rand’s statements about World War Two. You’ll have a hard time proving that what comes from AR is anti-AR. By the way, I agree with her.
which mark the edges of private property. . the fact that you and I
gang together to own adjoining property which makes up a
nation, for the defense of which we hire a goon named
government, identifies a political union. . okay?
and I can have a war on anyone who might choose to
employ rape, as a tactic, or kidnapping, as a tactic;;; why not
terror as a tactic? . I know, the "war on poverty" will come up,
but that is a ruse for a campaign to seduce voters.
and yes, the wall is a stupid crutch to make up for stupid laws
which lure people here for the wrong reasons. . like welfare. -- j
.
Copied and pasted this part from another comment.
"Of course we will have eliminated the income tax so that everybody will be included in the system, including immigrants. We will have put a stop to the war on drugs so that the criminal element is not drawn to us and we don't make criminals out of those already here. We will have eliminated welfare so they must support themselves when they come here. We will have eliminated the minimum wage so that the young and/or uneducated can get a job and get a start in life. We will welcome their hard work, productiveness and innovation. And we will have beaten the ever-lovin shit out of our enemies so badly that they will be afraid to show their heads out from under their rocks."
At this point, who else is left? At this point the amount of criminals coming across our nations border is miniscule compared to the number of criminals crossing state borders within the country. We've already decided no wall is necessary. At this point, why do we need armed guards at the gates? At this point we can respect the rights of ALL individuals. Including our own.
Isolationist: noun
"a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries"
Then you say 'priority' is undefined. And agains:
Priority: noun (pl. priorities)
"a thing that is regarded as more important than another: housework didn't figure high on her list of priorities.
• the fact or condition of being regarded or treated as more important: the safety of the country takes priority over any other matter.
• the right to take precedence or to proceed before others: priority is given to those with press passes | [ as modifier ] : clear the left lane for priority traffic"
You continue to find words you claim are undefined, when in fact they have very exact and clear definitions. Rational and logically reasoned thought requires a clear and exact understanding of concepts, context, and words. Only the irrational and/or the sophist refuse to accept a clear and common usage of a word, and attempt to spread their nonsensical interpretations.
Then you purposely accuse me of calling AR's use of the phrases of "national self-interest" and "the country's interest" collectivist. I called you collectivist after I pointed out your mis-interpretation of AR's use and meaning of those phrases. A nation or country has no self-interest, it is not an entity, but is a creation of man.
While I prefer to not think of you as irrational, (though your comments have that appearance), I think your intent of disruption and interference of those on a site identified as Objectivist is clear and is sophistry of the worst kind.
That concept is socialist/statist.
:)
In Ayn Rand's words; "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry."
This is what you have been pushing this whole time and trying to fault or blame Objectivism in the process.
even if you say a "war on terrorists" that is the same thing-it is a war on TACTICS, not a nation. You cannot have a war against tactics. You are a vet, John. You over many of us, know this. How many terrorist organizations have we added to our "war" arsenal since 9/11? The vast majority of refugees are just that-political refugees fleeing wars we keep making with no winner deciding a proper govt and fighting the real dangers to any proper society-ideas. Keep focused on the wall and Bernie Sanders will win the election.
where they choose." . that is not a right. . I may not
choose to live in your house or on your property
without your welcome.
and the "war on terror" is misnamed;;; it is a war on
terrorists. . and please, what is a war on culture? -- j
p.s. "national defense," the primary requirement
for a government, implies that property owners
assent to being part of a nation, a place with
geographic integrity = borders.
.
Then there are those use the word “collectivism” in a hazy, meaningless, undefined sense, such as “the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.” “Priority” is undefined, so you can bandy “collectivism” about where it makes no sense at all.
In this immigration argument “collectivism” is used as a smear word, and what is being smeared is patriotism, the preservation of one’s culture and country.
Foreigners make up a group, a collective. The nation’s government regulates the entry of each individual in that collective as one of the government’s proper functions.
Then there is the question of which foreigners, if any, should be allowed in and how many per year. Since a foreigner has no right of entry, he can be kept out for any reason, a crazy reason, or no reason. The principal moral issue is that a country’s citizens have the right to decide, just as they have the right to decide who is the country’s president and congressmen. One decision is no more collectivist than the other.
When Ayn Rand refers to “national self-interest” and “the country’s interest” with evident praise, you call it collectivist. I call it common sense.
Those who value America will reject the Third World en masse and forever. You can call that collectivist until you’re black in the face. The alternative is the end of America as we now know its fading remains.
... ARIwatch.com/AynRandOnWWII.htm
You represent the word collectivism on this site to be not precisely defined. That couldn't be further from the truth.
collectivism: noun
"the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.
• the theory and practice of the ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state."
That definition is very well understood by the Objectivists of this site and is used very precisely to describe your sophistry. Trying to give a new definition (Patriotism and nation self-interest) to collectivism is to precisely describe your anti-Objectivism.
Load more comments...